It's a Bug's life. Making this quickly as I need to leave soon and I have some comments to make.

----

This will be a single bold vote. Make sure that you bold your vote and nothing else! A typical vote might look like the following:

My preferred typing

Any comments that the voter has would go below the votes in non-bold text. Bold text is used to determine what the user's votes are, so none of the supplementary text should be in bold.

Click to expand...

Please post only your votes in this thread. Do not respond to other posts, or your posts will be moderated and you may be warned. You are allowed to say whatever you like in relation to your vote at the bottom of your post, but please do not look to begin a discussion. Keep those comments to #cap on IRC.

General Description: This Pokémon is very risky to play, but very rewarding if played correctly.

Justification: Many of the Pokémon that are successful in OU are relatively easy to play or have great "safe" options (e.g. U-turn). Yet, many other Pokémon look very powerful, but are less successful than they could be because of some large risks involved (e.g. Hydreigon), and some aren't successful at all (e.g. Honchkrow). This self-balancing concept intends to explore what it takes for a risky Pokémon to be successful, and how much inherent risk a Pokémon can get away with. It should be emphasized that this concept is NOT about luck management, but rather, it is about what the user can afford to do given his/her opponent's options, and vice versa.

Questions To Be Answered:

What is the relationship between risk and potential consequences, both positive and negative?

What kinds of inherently risky tactics are successful in the OU metagame?

Do risky Pokémon need some form of safe options (e.g. switch-ins) to be successful in OU, or can it get away with having few really safe options?

How does Substitute, a well-known "safe" move with nearly universal distribution, impact how this Pokémon is built and played?

How do existing Pokémon use and deal with risky situations?

Can risky Pokémon be played well in the early game, or are they better off put into action later on?

Gentlemen, we have come to the final stage. Well, the final stage of the second stage, anyway. If the Typing and Concept polls are to be any indication, we are to be seeing some very close results in this CAP. This either means we're hopelessly divided, or we've really begun to dig deep into this concept. I am going to go against my gut and hope it's the latter – I suppose that, being Topic Leader, I should really save the bitter cynicism for when someone else is in the hot seat.

Either that or half of us really want our first Psychic CAP and the other half love Dragons. But I'll leave the voting to your best judgement.

And on that note:

Bug/Psychic

Though I would be perfectly happy if they were the other way around, even so. Before we begin, I'd just like to put forward a few notes that, if you are unsure how to vote, might help you in choosing between the two. I must make it absolutely clear that these typings could not be any more different – and the choice that is made here will ultimately decide how the rest of the Project pans out, and the direction we take from here on. Thus I would ask you to please read the following; this is not about our Final Product, but about what each of these typings means to the Process required to get there.

Bug/Psychic is a quite easy, risky typing. Under standard conditions it has trouble switching in and, depending on its stats and ability, is likely to have a hard time dealing any significant damage without a firm resolve on the part of its user. Hence it is easy to see the direction we go – Bug/Psychic is largely focused on the Risk of "how can I use this Pokemon to the fullest effect in this situation?". Bug/Psychic is a unique typing, and a powerful offensive combination – hence the Risk is almost entirely dependent upon the choices the user makes in battle. This is the direct, straightforward, and understandable choice.

Bug/Dragon, on the other hand, is more complicated. The choice is less to do with the choices made by the user in battle, and more to do with the choices made outside the battle – namely, why would I use this particular Dragon over any other? Likely as not, the wallbreaker job will be done much better by any more powerful, faster, bulkier, or less hazard-weak Dragon. Thus here the onus, for us, is on two things – firstly, to build a Dragon that incorporates Risk, and second, one that is not outclassed by its peers. This makes it a more challenging typing than the above, and thus perhaps more worth the Process. But at the same time, the risk of failure is higher. This, then, is building something that does not yet exist in OU, and as far as I can tell, never has.

Please bear this in mind while voting. Thank you.

And here is a summary for those of you too lazy to read the above(Move your mouse to reveal the content)And here is a summary for those of you too lazy to read the above (open)And here is a summary for those of you too lazy to read the above (close)

Although I haven't really been active in this forum, I've been lurking this project for awhile and I believe Bug/Psychic is the superior choice between the two.

Bug/Psychic, in my opinion, allows for the CAP to have key resists (Fighting, Ground, etc.) and key weaknesses (Fire, Rock) that will make players utilize the risk to the fullest. my fear with Bug/Dragon is that its going to turn into a generic wall breaker, where as Bug/Psychic could make a really interesting Offensive Pivot and I think has more options in general.

As far as I'm concerned Bug/Psychic is the clear choice. We don't stand to learn nearly as much from Bug/Dragon, because the "risky" moves that have been used as justification to get it this far are moves that the standard OU metagame has already thoroughly explored. Selecting Bug/Dragon would be the low-risk approach to this concept, and Bug/Psychic gives us so much more opportunity to learn new things.